Matthew Stafford may have more arm strength but to say Tebow can't make NFL throws is absurd.

Exactly what route on the football field do you think Tebow can't complete?

The notion that his game doesn't translate is never backed up with any legit reason why he can't play there.

His delivery doesn't take any longer than someone like a Philip Rivers

Quote:

Originally Posted by keylime_5

Ryan's interceptions weren't due to bad accuracy necessarily. He threw so many attempts that of course his INTs were high, but he has very good passing accuracy. Stafford is a different story, he has a great arm but has very inconsistent accuracy.

Yeah this is very true alot of people just look at the low % and don't take this into account. Even when he did complete a pass it wasn't a easy since the DB was right on the WR every play.

This is true. Having poor receivers does affect QB play. Same with a poor team.

But on the flip side, there have been plenty of quarterbacks with worse receivers on worse teams that have played at the same level or higher than Stafford.

And looking to the future, there are plenty of NFL teams that are pretty bad too. Yes, pro offenses are better than college, but pro defenses are better too. What's to say that a QB would improve any? If he can't complete 60% with bad college receivers, will he complete 60% with bad pro receivers?

How much of that 55% completion is the fault of the receivers? More importantly, how much of it is the fault of the quarterback? Since we're talking a projected top 5-10 pick, how safe is it to take him that high? With very little exception, all the greats of the NFL were great college players, with great college numbers. It's not often that an underachiever in college becomes a star in the pros.

Casey Dick from Arkansas played against the SEC defenses too. Except he didn't benefit from especially great defense or offensive line. His receivers weren't all too special. He had a great trio of running backs, same as Stafford. But, Dick still had 57% completion, 18 TDs, 10 picks, albeit with a lot less yardage. But then again, he played in a predominantly run-based offense that didn't give him a lot of attempts and mostly asked him to make short passes, not long ones.

See, it's easy to make excuses. But can we honestly say that we would have no qualms about taking Casey Dick in the first 5 picks and that if he had a better team to play with, he'd be a better quarterback?

Hence, my suspicions about Stafford.

I do wish him well. He'll need a great season to get my vote. Though I'm sure he'll be drafted high anyways - the scouts have fallen in love with him. He's a prototypical quarterback with all the physical tools, he's from the SEC, he's a starter for a national title candidate and he's very white. Little yapping dogs like me spouting out numbers and statistics will not stop this massive bandwagon.

Tebow can make the throws but has funny mechanics and has a really lengthy delivery which will hurt his draft stock a lot, and the fact that he looks great in the same offense that Alex Smith looked great in doesn't help either considering how "terrific" Smith has been. Tebow's problem is not his arm strength or his leadership, but rather his mechanics and accuracy and the question of whether or not he can be a pocket passer in the NFL taking snaps from under center and only running to make throws or when he has to like Steve Young did.

Tebow's throwing motion is fine. The idea that his throwing motion is something fallacious just repeated over and over again until it's blindly accepted as fact.

Tebow's throwing motion is fine. The idea that his throwing motion is something fallacious just repeated over and over again until it's blindly accepted as fact.

Kind of like the stock of Matt Ryan and Matt Stafford.

The intelligence of this thread just dropped. Sharply. It's time for a lesson.

The best QBs in the NFL usually have nice tight natural throwing motions. It lets him get the ball away quickly. Why would he want to do that? Under pressure, he needs to be able to deliver the ball. It's often the difference between a TD and a sack. Next, it doesn't allow the linemen to get those paws up and bat down the ball. Third, if the defense is playing zone, they're going to be watching the QB. A sudden release doesn't allow ballhawks to get to the ball fast enough to make the play.

Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, etc. They release the ball suddenly. Then there's Byron Leftwich. Two things have killed his career: that throwing motion, and injuries. However, Leftwich can gun it. He may be able to get away with that motion from time to time because of the velocity he puts on the ball. Tebow, on the other hand, doesn't get near as much zip on the ball even with that motion. Granted, Tebow's motion is not as bad as that of Leftwich, but it's still quite ugly.

Besides the motion, there are clearly other knocks on this guy. The fact that he plays in an Urban system alone scares the living crap out of me, and tons of scouts across the country. Also, there's his dependence on his running ability, his use of power when running the ball, his inability to throw on the run, his spotty accuracy, his ugly ball, and his questionable footwork.

This is true. Having poor receivers does affect QB play. Same with a poor team.

But on the flip side, there have been plenty of quarterbacks with worse receivers on worse teams that have played at the same level or higher than Stafford.

And looking to the future, there are plenty of NFL teams that are pretty bad too. Yes, pro offenses are better than college, but pro defenses are better too. What's to say that a QB would improve any? If he can't complete 60% with bad college receivers, will he complete 60% with bad pro receivers?

How much of that 55% completion is the fault of the receivers? More importantly, how much of it is the fault of the quarterback? Since we're talking a projected top 5-10 pick, how safe is it to take him that high? With very little exception, all the greats of the NFL were great college players, with great college numbers. It's not often that an underachiever in college becomes a star in the pros.

Casey Dick from Arkansas played against the SEC defenses too. Except he didn't benefit from especially great defense or offensive line. His receivers weren't all too special. He had a great trio of running backs, same as Stafford. But, Dick still had 57% completion, 18 TDs, 10 picks, albeit with a lot less yardage. But then again, he played in a predominantly run-based offense that didn't give him a lot of attempts and mostly asked him to make short passes, not long ones.

See, it's easy to make excuses. But can we honestly say that we would have no qualms about taking Casey Dick in the first 5 picks and that if he had a better team to play with, he'd be a better quarterback?

Hence, my suspicions about Stafford.

I do wish him well. He'll need a great season to get my vote. Though I'm sure he'll be drafted high anyways - the scouts have fallen in love with him. He's a prototypical quarterback with all the physical tools, he's from the SEC, he's a starter for a national title candidate and he's very white. Little yapping dogs like me spouting out numbers and statistics will not stop this massive bandwagon.

A pro offense can hide a guy like Stafford's faults.

His completion percentage sucks when his receivers suck? Get him good receivers. Theres a quality NFL receiver on almost every team.

By the reflexive property, can we assume that you are in fact Matthew Stafford?

I'm not Stafford nor am I a Georgia fan. I like this guy and think he has the tools to be an NFL QB. Im a big Gator fan and Tebow but if it was my NFL team deciding between the two I'd go with Stafford.

I'm not Stafford nor am I a Georgia fan. I like this guy and think he has the tools to be an NFL QB. Im a big Gator fan and Tebow but if it was my NFL team deciding between the two I'd go with Stafford.

Lies.

Let's examine the facts, shall we?

"Stafford is da boss"

By the Reflexive Property, Da Boss is Stafford...Don't try to weasel your way out of this one, Mr. Stafford.

As for the bad completion percentage, let's not base it totally on the fact that he's got bad receivers.

He still throws off his back foot at times which is almost no-no number one with quarterbacks. Furthermore, I think he still has to refine some of the throws that he makes on certain routes, namely the 15-20 yard crossing routes his receivers run. I also don't think he's been able to really understand what defenses are being thrown at him and seems to struggle when calling audibles.

However, all these are quite fixable, and his upside is very attractive. He has the physical tools, he just has to refine how he uses them.

I'm also waiting on him to have that one spotlight game. I haven't seen one yet.

As for the bad completion percentage, let's not base it totally on the fact that he's got bad receivers.

He still throws off his back foot at times which is almost no-no number one with quarterbacks. Furthermore, I think he still has to refine some of the throws that he makes on certain routes, namely the 15-20 yard crossing routes his receivers run. I also don't think he's been able to really understand what defenses are being thrown at him and seems to struggle when calling audibles.

However, all these are quite fixable, and his upside is very attractive. He has the physical tools, he just has to refine how he uses them.

I'm also waiting on him to have that one spotlight game. I haven't seen one yet.

You are accurate, the only thing I see diffrently is calling audibles. He didn't have the freedom to do it until the middle of the year and seemed to do a good job espically late in the year.

His mobility may be a little less than Romo's but I dont think he has the pocket presence of Romo. Stafford's arm and deep ball are alot better. Stafford also has good mechanics while Romo's may be unorthodox. Romo also has better accuracy I would say.

Stafford reminds me of Palmer.

__________________"He's the leader of the next great class of NFL players." - John Elway on Matt Ryan

I think Stafford has pretty good pocket presence, and I'll also praise him on ball security while he's in the pocket.

Some players can get away with bad pocket presence as long as he can hold on to the football and not turn it over. Stafford's presence is good and he doesn't turn the ball over so that's another double plus on Stafford's part.

That doesnt make sense. How can you get away from bad pocket presence if you hold onto the football and not turn it over? Does that mean just taking sacks all the time? It would make sense if you said you can get away with bad pocket presence if you get rid of the ball quickly...but you didnt.

And Stafford does turn the ball over alot. He throws a pick ever 34.8 passes...about the same as Matt 'Turnover' Ryan. And he has had some fumbling issues if I remember correctly?

__________________"He's the leader of the next great class of NFL players." - John Elway on Matt Ryan

That doesnt make sense. How can you get away from bad pocket presence if you hold onto the football and not turn it over? Does that mean just taking sacks all the time? It would make sense if you said you can get away with bad pocket presence if you get rid of the ball quickly...but you didnt.

And Stafford does turn the ball over alot. He throws a pick ever 34.8 passes...about the same as Matt 'Turnover' Ryan. And he has had some fumbling issues if I remember correctly?

I think it has been established the Ryan's turnover ratio is about equivalent to any of the other top college quarterbacks, so that point is moot.

People still knock on him for forcing the ball too much and turning it over.

Quote:

Weaknesses:
Arm strength is only average...Still throws too many interceptions...Accuracy can be streaky...Struggles with the deep ball...A bit of a gunslinger who will play too recklessly at times...Not very mobile and won't beat you with his feet...May have some minor durability issues...Isn't a great athlete...May not have a huge upside.

But if people do think that Ryan doesnt throw too many picks, then I have to give myself and others a pat on the back.

__________________"He's the leader of the next great class of NFL players." - John Elway on Matt Ryan

That doesnt make sense. How can you get away from bad pocket presence if you hold onto the football and not turn it over? Does that mean just taking sacks all the time? It would make sense if you said you can get away with bad pocket presence if you get rid of the ball quickly...but you didnt.

And Stafford does turn the ball over alot. He throws a pick ever 34.8 passes...about the same as Matt 'Turnover' Ryan. And he has had some fumbling issues if I remember correctly?

Not what I meant, but I see how you drew that conclusion from what I said.

Perhaps I should've said it was less damaging if you don't turn the ball over. But would you rather your QB take a sack as opposed to turning the ball over? Now to get to my real point, I think it's easier to teach a guy how to avoid the sack rather than how not to throw interceptions.

As for the interception point, I completely agree, but it doesn't have anything to do with the pocket presence he has. It's more to do with his accuracy, his throws on certain pass routes, and throwing off his back foot from time to time. And yes, you can also attribute it to receivers who don't get much separation from the DB.